[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Akhenaten said:
That you can think of only two says more about your own limited ability to view reality than it does about the human condition.
Click to expand...

Some people can only think in term of black and white, good and evil, mortal immortal. They can only see duality and are not able , or not willing, to go into anything more subtle than opposing dualities. Maybe Jabba is like that, maybe not, but he certainly did seem to struggle to go beyond duality for the mortal/immortal proof he tried to do with his A/~A.
 
Aepervius said:
Please. No. The correct term is wordsmith ;).

But i am always happy to take new apprentice. the starting fee is 14.99 USD per week, but sicne you are so nice I will give you the "immortal" Rabat of 5 USD, so it will only be 9.99 USB per week.
Click to expand...

What is the exchange rate, in homemade chewy chocolate-chip-walnut oatmeal cookies?
 
Akhenaten said:
Cheers, noble Apteryx, and my apologies for editing my post after you'd quoted it. Puss stood on the keyboard just as I hit 'submit' but I didn't notice he'd typed anything until I saw your quote.

:)
Click to expand...

No worries, Oh Mighty One.
I'll lift another glass of Year IV in honour of the literary talents of Puss.
 
Dear Jabba,

I have very little to add to the great responses here to your own post. Yours is clearly an old, pop-psychology misunderstanding of "left and right brain," "creative vs analytical" and "transcendence vs. rational." It was also completely insulting to me and others here. Feynman explained it very well: knowing the beauty of the mechanisms by which a plant makes a flower does not mean I cannot appreciate the beauty of the final flower; indeed it is better to appreciate both than to just ignorantly to appreciate only the beauty of the final result. Many of us can see BOTH the forest and the trees.

But just to remind you, you opened the thread by promising to use Bayesian Statistics to prove immortality. That is use of quite analytical math. Have you given up on this? If so, if immortality has no analytical proof, please then provide your other proof. But if you think your proof is only "I feel it" and that I can never understand this feeling because I am too analytical, then quit here. Feel what you wish, but I need evidence.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
  1. This is:

    • quite simply

    • not true.

  2. It beggars belief that:

    • you

    • have

    • turned

    • a single

      • albeit serious

      • mistaken belief

    • into

    • an entire

    • list of:

      • utter

      • fail.
Click to expand...


Terrible, It should read:

This is:
true.
- not
- - simply
- - quite
It beggars belief that:
belief
- single
- serious
- mistaken
- turned into
-- a list
--- entire
--- utter
--- fail


Although I bow to your superior knowledge of BB code formatting.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Filippo Lippi.
It's useful to see Jabba's posts don't actually change over time and that there's no change in their views whatsoever, simply a resignation to the fact that the others "don't get it".
 
The Evidence/Prior Probability of ~A

- So anyway, I am currently trying to provide evidence and logic, supportive of my claim that we cannot eliminate ~A as a possibility. And as long as we can’t, and my other numbers are reasonable, A is very probably wrong. And, very probably, I will not have just one finite existence.

- Whatever, in my suggested formula I'm using a prior probability for ~A of only 1% -- and, sure seems like reasonable people have to accept that there is some possibility of ~A being the case. Would .1% be small enough? We can go as low as you want.

- And then,
- We have all sorts of anecdotal evidence of reincarnation, NDEs and OOBEs.
- Quantum mechanics seems to support a universal consciousness.
- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot.
- Then, the reasons we think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body don’t seem all that demanding – i.e., 1) we think that nothing is non-physical, and 2) most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives.
 
Jabba said:
- So anyway, I am currently trying to provide evidence and logic, supportive of my claim that we cannot eliminate ~A as a possibility. And as long as we can’t, and my other numbers are reasonable, A is very probably wrong. And, very probably, I will not have just one finite existence.

- Whatever, in my suggested formula I'm using a prior probability for ~A of only 1% -- and, sure seems like reasonable people have to accept that there is some possibility of ~A being the case. Would .1% be small enough? We can go as low as you want.

- And then,
- We have all sorts of anecdotal evidence of reincarnation, NDEs and OOBEs.
- Quantum mechanics seems to support a universal consciousness.
- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot.
- Then, the reasons we think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body don’t seem all that demanding – i.e., 1) we think that nothing is non-physical, and 2) most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives.
Click to expand...

1) I can pretty much eliminate ~A as a possibility.

here is how it goes :
the Null hypothesis is that our consciousness is solely linked to the brain, and once the brain is dead, our consciousness die/stops. No evidence has ever been shown which cannot simply be explained by this null in a simpler way. NDE/OOBE/Etc ? Simpler explained by having them taking palce solely in the brain. There is no step 2.

2) even if we could not eliminate it, essentially anyway your number are wrong. P(A) is very near 1, because it is by definition the null hypothesis and we have no alternate viable scientific explanation (our consciousness is an emergent process of the brain, and if the brain die, the consciousness dies/stops with it). Your P(Me) was already explained to you to be 1.

Are you even reading what we tell you ? Sometimes I feel your whole psot are like this :

Jabba: I will prove the sky is blue because point 1,2,3,4 and evidence A,B,C,D

Skeptic: OK....

Jabba : Point 1, because of A

Skeptic : uhhhh, your 1 is false, your evidence A is actually wrong

Jabba (oblivious) : Point 2 , because of B

Skeptic : Your point 1 is wrong so you don't need to go further, your premise are wrong.

Jabba : But I will make the irrelevant subpoint 2alpha with evidence B

Skeptic : Helllloo ? Your point 1 and premise are wrong

Jabba : I disagreee. So from point 1 I go to point 3.....

Skeptic : Do you read what we write ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom